So you are saying yhwh's powers are not magic, but actually advanced technology? I have heard the quote[1] that sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic to a less advanced culture. But I have never heard yhwh's powers characterized that way. If it is not magic, what is it?

This does not answer my question. Quit being cryptic and quit making me drag the answer out of you. If yhwh's power cannot be characterized as magic, then what would you call it? What is the difference between magic and divine power?

It (yhwh)allegedly said a word and created the universe. If that is not magic, then it is science. What is the word? How can I use that word? Are there other words that can be used to alter reality?

Its a good thing that's your policy...although I'm curious, if I had a similar policy for an athiest's scientific proofs against my beliefs, what the response would be. Any takers? Anyone? What would you say to me if I took this stance if the situation were reversed?

The difference is I am not opposed to listening to your points. You present them, I will read and analyze. If it sounds good, then perhaps I would go watch a video. I have watched videos in the past and they have been uniformly disappointing and a waste of my time. If you think your videos are different, convince me in your own words.

If an atheist here told you to go watch a video instead of making his or her own argument, then I would support you if you said "no, tell me in your words."

You say that it doesn't come close to what Einstein said, and yet you leave it to someone else to explain it? But surely you know enough to make this determination.

Einstein was talking about how time actually passes differently depending on gravity and speed. You are talking about... perceptions of time with gods and humans. Einstein provided equations. You provide...? Einstein's theory is in use today with communication satellites. Your idea is used today with...? Now, I know very little about The Theory of Relativity. But I do know what you are talking about has nothing to do with it.

This is false, buddy. Obviously you didnt read even the beginning of "Modern Money Mechanics", but then again maybe you have a book policy?

I have a policy of insisting that in a conversation the other conversant keep up his end. Just as I am not going to waste my time with videos, I am also not going to waste my time with books, unless I am given a sufficient reason to believe it is not going to be a waste of my time. You are putting the burden of making your point on me. I find that inappropriate and I do not accept it.

(lol) You can consider it whatever you want. Heck, you make your own policies right, so why is this any different? But if you showed evidence that you tried to watch it (because you can't help but to quote verses if you did) I would reciprocate and this conversation could continue (since when were videos held to a different standard than other references? This whole thread was started because of several videos, LOL).

You can lol all you want. Unless you are going to bring something to the table, I see no need for us to continue. You have made some claims and failed utterly to support those claims.

This does not answer my question. Quit being cryptic and quit making me drag the answer out of you. If yhwh's power cannot be characterized as magic, then what would you call it? What is the difference between magic and divine power?

It (yhwh)allegedly said a word and created the universe. If that is not magic, then it is science. What is the word? How can I use that word? Are there other words that can be used to alter reality?

If you have knowledge in something you have power (i.e. "the ability to do work") in it.

All "technology" is Knowledge, but not all Knowledge is "technology", as "technology" is the "application/engineering of a particular science (a specific knowledge)"...

Science will attest to the fact that not all knowledge is "known" by us, and if it's not (all) known, said knowledge is not yet complete/perfect. Yet, the closer we get to having complete/perfect knowledge in a particular thing or discipline the less effort/resources we need to create/manipulate/use that thing or discipline.

For instance:

- remember the first cell phones...fast forward to today and notice how small our phones now are.- Less gas is now needed to drive longer distances compared to the first automobiles- "Voice-Activated" devices (yes, actual examples of things being manipulated/controlled simply by the "word") where once we needed to physically handle their parent versions- (anyone else can add their own examples to this list)

Knowledge can be proven to be on an inverse scale where "the more you know about (x); the less effort you need to create/use/manipulate (x)"...so then it can be logically assumed - if we attempt to draw out this scale to the "Nth" state - a perfect knowledge of "X" possibly requires such an infantesimal amount of effort that it would look like magic. And if it's a "perfect knowledge" (that which can be simply commanded by a word with little to no effort), then it is a "perfect power".

Yes, you did. You said those things kept you in bond which was how you have been categorizing modern slavery.

No...The initial quesiton I posed for this point was "when [will one be free of the bondage]", and then I give instruments that "keep" one in bond. Your reply was "Irrelevant. Those do not make you the property", to which I replied, "I never said they [the additionally added instruments] did [make you the property]". But "yes", those things do keep you in bondage, as they extend the length of time. I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal to this; how you didn't say this or mean this or how I didn't communicate it to you well enough or whatever (instead of admitting that you initially misunderstood), so I'll just let you have the last word as I'm done with this particular portion of the conversation.

---

And I wasn't laughing at you...I was laughing at the irony of the resulting situation.

Reading your posts, it seems you present the issue of slavery as if it was only about debt.

I was wondering why you are omitting instances of non-debt related god-ordained enslavement. If a justification for bible slavery (that is consistent with your god concept) is your aim, then you're not doing a fair job of it by not including all of the facets of it.

My original assumption was that such conduct couldn't be willful, thus my assumption that you've not yet done a full bible read. I have now had the chance to see this sort of thing from you in another thread, and am able now to consider a few more options.

Maybe you could enlighten me on instances of non-debt related enslavement ordained by Yah, because I'm only familiar with instances of debt related enslavement (as ordained by Yah). Give me the bible verse or passage to read and we can hash it out together.

How can you say it didn't work if I got what I wanted? I was trying to show you that none of your criteria are requirements for affirmative answers to prayers as you claim them to be. I wasn't trying to show you that prayer doesn't work... at least not in that post. I was, however, trying to set the stage for the post that does show you that prayer doesn't work.

By showing me that it does work!? Regardless...I respect your candor.

Here...our responses to each other assumes you and I are praying to the same deity (focal point of prayer). Whether you believe he's real or fake, this is the assumption. So let me qualify my earlier responses by saying "outside of the rules, you are not praying to Yah but to someone/something else". My earlier responses assumes you're praying to Yah, the Most High...a Singular deity who is One...and beside He, no one else is. I'm not talking about prayer to one of the false trinity: Gad, Jesus, Ghost.

There is this whole subplot in scripture about "stealing worship through deception and/or proxy", as there was another who always wanted to be worshipped like the Most High; who would give as much as he could to you if he was the one who was worshipped instead...

My point is, if you prayed (outside of the stipulations I've provided) you are/were not praying to Yah. And if your prayer was answered positively, it wasn't Yah who answered your prayer but something else. Your prayer wasn't sent in worship of Yah, but in worship of another.

And regardless of whether you believe in this "other" or not, my point is "prayer can not be used as a litmus test to determine the existence of Yah (as a variable) unless there are no other variables in the equation; unless you first adhere to the spitulations of praying specifically to Yah".

I am a mechanical engineer. Please point out where the bible has mechanical engineering. I must have missed it.

Quote

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, 10 cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about.

7:24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.

7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

My hand is 4" (10cm)wide. I am taller than an early Iron Age Middle Easterner but I am not a manual laborer like they were. I've heard 18" (46cm) for a cubit and googled for confirmation and I got answers of 16.85" (42.8cm) to 17.5" (44.5cm).

That 30 cubits circumference for the outside as stated is going to be 49" (125cm) too short.

Some people misread this and think the Bible says the value of pi is 3. I've heard[1] that Babylonian engineers said pi was 3 and must've done a lot of fudging to make a project fit that design. So I assumed Bible engineers did that, too.

Still, no answer. The plan had to have the outside decorations, 10 to a cubit, spaced evenly. Hard to do if the calculations were a full cubit wrong.

Or maybe the Bible phrased it poorly or maybe wrote it down wrong and the outside diameter was 10 cubits and there was a rim one hand (.24 cubits) thick. That would make the inside 9.53 cubits and the circumference 29.94 cubits. That would only be 1" off. If the cubit was 17.5" and the hand 4" then it would be 29.98 cubits circumference.

So what the Bible writer meant to say was: "And he made a molten sea, 10 cubits across on the outside."

But that wouldn't explain the decorations spaced evenly, 10 per cubit on the outside. I still come up with a need to fudge that by about 2.5" or 10 cm.

Maybe you could enlighten me on instances of non-debt related enslavement ordained by Yah, because I'm only familiar with instances of debt related enslavement (as ordained by Yah). Give me the bible verse or passage to read and we can hash it out together.

For instance,

Quote

Exodus 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 12,060 beeves, And 1,060 asses,

31:35 And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Maybe you could enlighten me on instances of non-debt related enslavement ordained by Yah, because I'm only familiar with instances of debt related enslavement (as ordained by Yah). Give me the bible verse or passage to read and we can hash it out together.

For instance,

Quote

Exodus 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 12,060 beeves, And 1,060 asses,

31:35 And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Ok (and maybe this is what Ambassador Pony was refering to). Let me read this passage in context and I'll get back to you.

So let me qualify my earlier responses by saying "outside of the rules, you are not praying to Yah but to someone/something else". My earlier responses assumes you're praying to Yah, the Most High...a Singular deity who is One...and beside He, no one else is. I'm not talking about prayer to one of the false trinity: Gad, Jesus, Ghost.

Alright Joshua, then show me how to pray to Yah in the way you want, and I will see if it's true. Or better yet, if you think you meet all of your own criteria, YOU do it and prove your point with a verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable test procedure. Or best... find someone you think epitomizes and exemplifies ALL of your criteria and have them do repeated intercessory prayers and see what happens.

I am saying that none of it really matters. You claim that there are specific requirements to be met by someone who prays that will enhance the possibility of receiving an answer to a prayer. You can say Most High, Singular diety, the One, the Only, the Alpha and Omega, the be-all and end-all... the point I am making is that no matter which diety it is, there is no difference. I am claiming that Yah, and all the other dieties that you claim are false dieties, and all the ones you aren't even mentioning here, do not answer prayers at all. Unless you can prove that YOUR special diety answers them, then you are just as stuck as everyone else.

There is this whole subplot in scripture about "stealing worship through deception and/or proxy", as there was another who always wanted to be worshipped like the Most High; who would give as much as he could to you if he was the one who was worshipped instead...

I don't worship any diety. Nobody is stealing my worship. I think all previously postulated god(s) are simply not real.

Do you really think it's surprising that a religion that was formed amidst many, many other competing religions would have a phrase in it's holy book about other dieties who want to steal worship?

My point is, if you prayed (outside of the stipulations I've provided) you are/were not praying to Yah.

How do you know that? How can you possibly know my current standing with what you consider to be the most powerful being in the universe?

If you claim I can't pray to Yah, then how am I ever supposed to get to know Yah in the first place? What does it take to know this Yah character you keep talking about? And don't give me that wishy, washy "you have to ask with all your heart" bull, because I'm not a 5 year old. I won't simply fall for that trick, where I either ask for the rest of my natural life, or I convince myself that this Yah character exists. I need some sort of timeline. How long do I "seek" Yah before I give up and am allowed to say "Nope, Yah isn't real." I need some sort of way to know that I am "right" with Yah. I'm not just going to take your word for it either way. Obviously he's not someone that people know about.

And if your prayer was answered positively, it wasn't Yah who answered your prayer but something else. Your prayer wasn't sent in worship of Yah, but in worship of another.

Joshua, please, you have got to start thinking a bit here. I am asking you to respond directly and comment on what I am about to write, OK? Don't dodge it, don't go around it, answer these questions honestly....

Given the complete lack of verifiable evidence that any prayer has EVER actually been answered by an act of a supernatural entity, is it not possible that there is nothing out there that answers prayer in the first place? Is it not possible that the "other" thing that you say answers my prayer is not a "thing" at all, and is nothing more than normal circumstances that happen to occur, and my prayer had no bearing at all on the outcome of what I prayed for? And if that is possibly true, is it also not possible that all of your excuses and criteria are nothing more than the rationalizations that you have come up with to explain this scenario in detail, without having to give up your belief in your invisible surrogate parent? Think about it, please. I am talking possibilities here, not certainties. Where does that logically fall apart for you?

And regardless of whether you believe in this "other" or not, my point is "prayer can not be used as a litmus test to determine the existence of Yah (as a variable) unless there are no other variables in the equation; unless you first adhere to the spitulations of praying specifically to Yah".

No, it can't. You're right here. But you ARE able to establish a reasonable doubt if you meet ALL of your stipulations (not SPITulations) prior to praying, and you still don't show any increase in probability of answered prayer, agreed? So set up the test. And if you even remotely say "Yah can't be tested", then I will simply say you're wrong and you don't hold a belief that can be logically maintained by a reasonable person. If you can't test your theory, then don't even bother saying it.

Your position holds that this Yah character does answer prayer but only under specific yet incredibly vague and unprovable conditions that allows you to claim that the person who prayed didn't meet one or more of your criteria simply by looking at the result of the prayer (yes or no). My position holds that intercessory prayer holds no value at all in terms of the outcome of what is prayed for. I believe that the outcomes of intercessory prayer are nothing more than the natural end results that would have happened regardless of whether it was prayed for. In effect, intercessory prayer is tantamount to asking the air for help. Useless.

With all due respect, I believe this is all in your head Joshua. Really it is. Without any type of proof here, your theory involving specific criteria holds no more weight than anything that anyone else could make up. In fact, if I were to say that all future prayers have to pass through my kitchen sink in order to be answered, then I can just as easily rationalize that any yes answer passed through my kitchen sink and any no answer didn't pass through my kitchen sink. Can you please tell me the difference between your belief and that? Seriously, what's the difference?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

If you have knowledge in something you have power (i.e. "the ability to do work") in it.

I disagree. Knowledge is inert. It grants a potential to do or make a thing, not the actual thing. I know how to build a diesel engine or lawn mower or a machine gun or any number of technological marvels. But to actually make them, I require tools. Knowledge does not make me inherently capable. It does not allow me to manipulate reality through my mind and knowledge alone.

So if your god does all these wondrous things and it does so only by knowledge, it either requires the use of tools or it has some other inherent capability. Shall we call it a power? Or even a "magical" power?

All "technology" is Knowledge, but not all Knowledge is "technology", as "technology" is the "application/engineering of a particular science (a specific knowledge)"...

And if your god is applying its knowledge to do things - ie engineer an event or the creation of a universe - then it is technology. You are saying yhwh's power is technological. Where are its machines? Where are its tools? Or if it does not need them, how does it manipulate reality?

Science will attest to the fact that not all knowledge is "known" by us, and if it's not (all) known, said knowledge is not yet complete/perfect. Yet, the closer we get to having complete/perfect knowledge in a particular thing or discipline the less effort/resources we need to create/manipulate/use that thing or discipline.

For instance:

- remember the first cell phones...fast forward to today and notice how small our phones now are.

But if you wanted to make a rotary phone, it would require the exact same resources that it required 40 years ago. Not only that, but it probably took less energy to make it than it does a cell phone. High tech requires high energy input, even if the final product weighs a fraction of the old time version.

- "Voice-Activated" devices (yes, actual examples of things being manipulated/controlled simply by the "word") where once we needed to physically handle their parent versions

So when yhwh spoke the universe into creation, it was using a hands free device? Sorry, man. I just get the feeling you are grasping at straws.

And in all these examples you have illustrated how knowledge has advanced our craft, but it does not show knowledge itself actually doing anything. It always has to be applied and that requires a lot of actual work.

Knowledge can be proven to be on an inverse scale where "the more you know about (x); the less effort you need to create/use/manipulate (x)"

I disagree. In my experience it is usually the opposite. For example, what requires less effort to light a room - making a candle and lighting it or making a fluorescent light, and the requisite power source and flipping a switch? The tech solution is the costlier one, the one that depends on the hard work of thousands.

I can think of cases where knowledge grants us trade offs to do things that would otherwise be difficult. For example, a lever allows us to lift a heavier mass but it comes at the expense of having to move a greater distance. The net effort, however, is the same.

^^One thing that bothers me about god's laws are if he knows that we are going to break his laws he can at least budge a little and lighten up some of his standards. Sure, murdering someone is always bad, but it's absolutely impossible to to follow god's laws, with god sending down his son or not.

But god's reasoning is that we will seek Jesus for forgiveness, but we'd have to ask jesus for forgiveness every second of every day because according to god's laws we break his rules without even knowing it. God's a real hard ass, and he doesn't need to be. In his infinite glory he can become more easy going and allow us mere humans to live like he knew we would, and give us at least some fair shot of making it into heaven.

Emily a question.

I hope I don't off topic here and get myself in trouble.

But, your post amuses me.

I wonder if you question God and his standard of judging us who will you go for help to complain about this?Jesus?What can Jesus do? God is superior. And God is one alone with no one to be accountable to. We are the one's accountable to no one but God.

So in the situation when you are unhappy with his choice of our punishment.

^^One thing that bothers me about god's laws are if he knows that we are going to break his laws he can at least budge a little and lighten up some of his standards. Sure, murdering someone is always bad, but it's absolutely impossible to to follow god's laws, with god sending down his son or not.

But god's reasoning is that we will seek Jesus for forgiveness, but we'd have to ask jesus for forgiveness every second of every day because according to god's laws we break his rules without even knowing it. God's a real hard ass, and he doesn't need to be. In his infinite glory he can become more easy going and allow us mere humans to live like he knew we would, and give us at least some fair shot of making it into heaven.

Emily a question.

I hope I don't off topic here and get myself in trouble.

But, your post amuses me.

I wonder if you question God and his standard of judging us who will you go for help to complain about this?Jesus?What can Jesus do? God is superior. And God is one alone with no one to be accountable to. We are the one's accountable to no one but God.

So in the situation when you are unhappy with his choice of our punishment.

What do you do about that?

Are you implying that we must have fear of this god because we have no other resources to complain with?

I wonder if you question God and his standard of judging us who will you go for help to complain about this?Jesus?What can Jesus do? God is superior. And God is one alone with no one to be accountable to. We are the one's accountable to no one but God.

So in the situation when you are unhappy with his choice of our punishment.

What do you do about that?

I can't answer for Emily, but I will say this.

Is Jesus God? Or are they actually separate entities/people/things, whatever?

God is not real, and Jesus, if he was a real man, was no god. I think that if we give God the benefit of the doubt, he's an asshat at best. And a really, really shitty creator, at worst. I only question God when discussing his holy mean-ness with believers. Otherwise, I assume we are talking abou the attributes of a mythological god that was invented by very uncivilized ancient humans.

digging back into philosophy 101, I remembered the idea of requirement and sufficiency. By that I mean, for example, while fuel and oxygen are required for a fire, their presence alone is not sufficient to have a fire. Similarly, knowledge may be required for power, but it is not sufficient for it.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."--Jesus, Matthew 28:19

Christians regards their religion as monotheistic, since Christianity teaches the existence of one God - Yahweh, the God of the Jews. It shares this belief with two other major world religions, Judaism and Islam.

However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, "three").

# The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible# The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)# The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"# The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

# Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:

[...]There are many differences in doctrine between various mainstream Christian denominations, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not one of them.

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. -- Roman Catholicism

The fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church is the faith revealed in the True God: the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. -- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence .-- Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod)

We trust in the one triune God. -- Presbyterian Church (USA)

The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being. -- Southern Baptist Convention

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. -- United Methodist Church

The atheist will see the above as more proof (were it needed) that men decide what god is like and invent him to satisfy their own egos.

Of course, if you do not accept the Trinity, then this raises the question of, "What's Jesus' job in heaven?"

If you do accept the doctrine, the question arises, "What was Jesus doing that God could not have?"

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Exodus 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 12,060 beeves, And 1,060 asses,

31:35 And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

(The correct source is Numbers 31:32, 35) The issue was whether this was "debt based" slavery or "non-debt". It was a "debt based" slavery.

Numbers 22:This story starts farther back when Israel was freed from Egypt. Moab feared the Children of Israel because of their size, the stories of defeating the Amorites, and because they were now in a land he occupied. In greed, he feared Israel claiming more of the land as territory over him (verse Num 22:4), so he sent messengers to Balaam (a priest) to curse Israel so Moab could drive them away.

Balaam was a follower of Yah who was instructed NOT to curse Israel because they were a blessed people (Num 22:12-13). Balak – being persistent – tempted Balaam with an honorable position and riches and property if he would curse Israel asking three times in a span of several days. Balaam however – instructed by Yah – built seven alters in three different locations in Moab’s land to bless Israel. Moab pleaded but Balaam would not curse Israel but he did tell the future of Moab’s people (that they would be swallowed up by Israel). Balak departed and everything was seemingly settled, until…

Number 25:Moabite women began infiltrating Israel. Using their sexuality, the Moabite women tempted Israel’s males to break the law [no idolatry; no fornication outside of marriage] by worship false gods and through whoredom, defiling the holy place.

[Meanwhile, also in that time the priest, Balaam, gave into temptation and turned against Yah, as we read in 2 Peter 2:15. Now whether this occurred before the Moabite women were sent into Israel I can’t be sure, but it’s interesting that the one who originally resisted temptation to “curse” Israel was no longer on Yah’s side when the corruption of Israel occurred.]

Because of this assault against the Law, Yah commands “Vex the Midianites and smite them for they vex you with their [women’s feminine] wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor (the Israelite male who was seduced to sin), and in the matter of Cozbi (the seducer), the daughter of the prince of Midian.” (Num 25:17-18)

The women were the chief transgressors sent to destroy Israel from the inside using their own bodies. So the generals of Israel destroyed the army of Midian, however they saved ALL the women and children...but it was the women who brought in the corruption and caused Israel to break the law! So Moses said “kill all of the males [as boys grow up into men who’d war to avenge their fathers] and women who were not virgins [as these women used their bodies as weapons to corrupt Israel]”. The female children and women virgins were to be kept alive as bond-women/servants (Num 31:18).

So slavery was a level of mercy for these virgin women who didn’t use their bodies in the attack on Israel (otherwise they would’ve been killed also).

---

But I think the real question is “how were these slaves treated?” What is Slavery from a Hebrew perspective…how is any slavery morally condoned?

I can image how most people imagine slavery for these women and children; conjuring images of how blacks and women were mistreated as such in human history by their masters…but I tell you, humanity's use of slavery is a perversion/corruption of how slavery was originally meant from Yah’s point of view.

Slavery is a method of payment when payment can’t be made; a result of debt. When one can’t pay, they enter into servitude (for a time) to pay. The nation of Midian sinned against Yah by corrupting Israel to break the law. All deserved to die. However, Moses spared the virgin women. So these women & children owed Israel their lives; indebted to Israel for sparing them and ALSO because they wouldn’t have been able to support themselves without their own men (at the time).

Hebrew Concept of Slavery – “The owner is required to supply Hebrew slaves, whether male or female, with the same quality of food and drink, clothing and living accommodations as his own, as it states 'for he is happy with you' (Deut 15:16), which the rabbis interpret as meaning that the master may not eat good quality bread and serve the slave inferior quality bread, that the master may not drink old wine and serve the servant new wine, that the master may not sleep on feathers and the slave sleep on straw. The Sages say that the one who buys a slave for himself is really buying a master for himself.”

So if I’m eating, drinking, sleeping and dressing well and if I’m following the law of Yah you can guarantee my slave is as rich as I am! And if Im following the Law, my slave is NOT supposed to do demeaning or fruitless labor but is to work off his/her debt. And in the jubilee year my slave has the free choice to leave me or to stay with me (Deut 15:16), as his debt to me has been paid in full.

“Finally, the Torah protects the female slave's honor and commands the master either to marry her or to give her to his son in marriage, and if not, ‘she shall go free, without payment" (Ex. 21:11), i.e., without having to pay for her freedom’”...in the Jubilee year.

What a complete load of bunk. You managed to cherry-pick your way through scripture and wiggle your way through with an array of mental gymnastics that just has me shaking my head. This is what christians do. It's what they have to do in order to continue to believe.

Let's hear your take on how to beat your slaves properly, and why it's okay to do so.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Logged

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan

Thanks for explaining that the instance mentioned by Historicity was one of non-debt related slavery. You've underlined why that slavery is completely different than how you characterize it in your failed analogy from earlier.

All this saves me the trouble of listing the other instances of it, in order to show your argument's frailty.

Best of luck re-working your rationalization to make it effective outside your own mind.

Why do they waste so much time and effort to rationalize this stuff? Don't they have anything better to do?

We're talking about people who (with rare exceptions) have been indoctrinated into a particular worldview from a very early age and generally just presuppose that it's correct. When that worldview comes under attack, they probably feel threatened and alarmed, even though the attack is aimed at the ideas, not the person himself.

Never having had to suffer thru the deconversion process myself, it's hard for me to know what that must be like, but if I had to compare it to anything I might be able to relate to, I would think it would be like seeing your spouse becoming increasingly attracted to another person and your being frantic to avoid losing the one you love. (Can one of the deconverted here enlighten me?) It's no small wonder that these people fight so hard to hang onto their beliefs. If they were to lose those beliefs, it would change their life completely -- in a way that they think would be extremely horrible.

I think the "saving the lost" thing is probably also a factor, but I think the self-interest is probably the more important element by a fairly large margin.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

What a complete load of bunk. You managed to cherry-pick your way through scripture and wiggle your way through with an array of mental gymnastics that just has me shaking my head. This is what christians do. It's what they have to do in order to continue to believe.

Let's hear your take on how to beat your slaves properly, and why it's okay to do so.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Talk about cherry-picking. I give the entire context and then a source from descendants of those who actually wrote the passage so you can read and you first "snip" (interesting you admit to it) and then present a question based on a verse you yourself cherry-picked out of context. Why don't you read it from the beginning of 21?

All together now..."if you beat your slave, and they die, you will be punished ("put to death" in context of the chapter). If the slave survives (lives; is fine) after a day or two, the owner is not punished ("put to death"), since he owns the slave. The context is explaining the concept of "life for a life"; DO NOT COMMIT MURDER. Does this contradict anything I previously wrote?

Thanks for explaining that the instance mentioned by Historicity was one of non-debt related slavery. You've underlined why that slavery is completely different than how you characterize it in your failed analogy from earlier.

All this saves me the trouble of listing the other instances of it, in order to show your argument's frailty.

Best of luck re-working your rationalization to make it effective outside your own mind.

Are you serious!? Man...I'm convinced while some of you are willing to have an honest conversation, others just like to hear/read themselves talk/speak...with no substance; without using the quoted source (the scripture in context) to defend your argument. Some of you guys just say stuff with no proof but will wait for others to help them on their OWN point.

What a complete load of bunk. You managed to cherry-pick your way through scripture and wiggle your way through with an array of mental gymnastics that just has me shaking my head. This is what christians do. It's what they have to do in order to continue to believe.

Let's hear your take on how to beat your slaves properly, and why it's okay to do so.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Talk about cherry-picking. I give the entire context and then a source from descendants of those who actually wrote the passage so you can read and you first "snip" (interesting you admit to it) and then present a question based on a verse you yourself cherry-picked out of context. Why don't you read it from the beginning of 21?

Of course I admit that I snipped it. It's forum etiquette. It's already been laid out for anyone to read.

I did read it from the beginning. Don't make assumptions.

Providing an example that opposes your point of view is not cherry picking.

Quote

All together now..."if you beat your slave, and they die, you will be punished ("put to death" in context of the chapter). If the slave survives (lives; is fine) after a day or two, the owner is not punished ("put to death"), since he owns the slave. The context is explaining the concept of "life for a life"; DO NOT COMMIT MURDER. Does this contradict anything I previously wrote?

What a surprise. Another christian who gets sarcastic and defensive when he's called out.

Quote

Read, dude.

Fuck off, dude.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2010, 03:02:56 PM by sammylama »

Logged

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan

lol. You've expressed the underlying feeling of a lot of people here on this forum (when an outsider comes in and tries to proselytize)...but most won't admit to it. They'll hide behind their vast intellegence (and there are indeed vast intellegences as members here) to try to scare people away, while others will use tried & true scenarios to attempt to trick and trap the "believer" who hasn't studied their own faith (or who are more faithful to their religion than to the truth)...and then there are some who will consider and argue and conclude as the argument and proof leads...which hasn't been successful in the consideration of a "belief in Yah"

Well at least you're more honest than most (and I respect that).

EDIT: I've got to step out for now but I will reply to you next, Jeff...I'll be back.

Hebrew Concept of Slavery – “The owner is required to supply Hebrew slaves, whether male or female, with the same quality of food and drink, clothing and living accommodations as his own, as it states 'for he is happy with you' (Deut 15:16), which the rabbis interpret as meaning that the master may not eat good quality bread and serve the slave inferior quality bread, that the master may not drink old wine and serve the servant new wine, that the master may not sleep on feathers and the slave sleep on straw. The Sages say that the one who buys a slave for himself is really buying a master for himself.”

So if I’m eating, drinking, sleeping and dressing well and if I’m following the law of Yah you can guarantee my slave is as rich as I am! And if Im following the Law, my slave is NOT supposed to do demeaning or fruitless labor but is to work off his/her debt. And in the jubilee year my slave has the free choice to leave me or to stay with me (Deut 15:16), as his debt to me has been paid in full.

All together now..."if you beat your slave, and they die, you will be punished ("put to death" in context of the chapter). If the slave survives (lives; is fine) after a day or two, the owner is not punished ("put to death"), since he owns the slave. The context is explaining the concept of "life for a life"; DO NOT COMMIT MURDER. Does this contradict anything I previously wrote?

Ah, but this part does address it. Shall we assume that you don't find that the lack of condemnation for beating your slave (such that he does not die) does not mean your god condones corporal beatings? Because I think most logical minds would assume it so. I would come to this conclusion after reading your quote above, that killing a slave deserves punishment (Why death? Does it specifically state that?), but if the slave does not die, the owner is not punished. Read that again; if the slave does not die, the owner is not punished! Implicitly, your god has no problems with his chosen peoples beating a slave as long as they don’t kill it.

lol. You've expressed the underlying feeling of a lot of people here on this forum (when an outsider comes in and tries to proselytize)...but most won't admit to it. They'll hide behind their vast intellegence (and there are indeed vast intellegences as members here) to try to scare people away, while others will use tried & true scenarios to attempt to trick and trap the "believer" who hasn't studied their own faith (or who are more faithful to their religion than to the truth)...and then there are some who will consider and argue and conclude as the argument and proof leads.

Well at least you're more honest than most (and I respect that).

Well, maybe not quite so deep here. Although I admit that I am a fairly incredible guy, I was really just shooting a round back at you. I like it when a response catches me off guard.

Still in disagreement on the whole slavery thing, though...

Logged

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan